Bro. Homesick,...The lawsuit filed by Union employees of Sysco Canada,.....and the consequent upholding of the arbitrator's decision by a Canadian Superior Court,...I would imaging, would be the reference case in any other lawsuit. Not exactly sure how Canadian law differs from American court systems, but I think that if the same ruling was reinforced by an American Superior Court,....no company would waste the Court's time by filing a redundant lawsuit.
In effect,....that Superior court ruling would end driver-facing cameras.
Not sure if driver-facing cameras are legal in European trucking. Border crossings involve many different governments. Haven't really researched how European trucking companies comply with different sets of invasion-of-privacy and surveillance laws as they cross borders.
As we all know, trucking companies and legal groups are all for it,........SOLELY to decrease the trucking companies' liability exposure......and the consequent lower insurance payouts in the event of an accident.
What many drivers aren't aware of, is that if YOU, the driver, have a legal ruling,...based on camera evidence,..that you are "at fault"...even partially,.....your Homeowner's Liability insurance MAY be tapped .
How many drivers will face a so-called "jury of your peers" in a civil court......and have an adverse ruling .....based on jurors' feelings about trucks,...and years of viewing ambulance-chasing lawyer's commercials on Television about "Have you been hurt by Dangerous Large Trucks?"....
The fact that many companies either have removed,...or have decided not to use,...driver-facing cameras, tells me that the legality of such an intrusion of privacy has not been challenged in a United States Court of Law yet.....
Otherwise, the companies would jam them down your throat, and tell you there's nothing you can do about it......
If you go to TruckingTruth.com..........they will show you the companies who do have cameras,.....and those who don't, or have removed them.
If you look at the two lists,.....it becomes apparent,...to those of us in the trucking industry,....that the companies who NEED some sort of driver supervision,......are the ones who LACK extensive driver training...
....and are the VERY ONES who DO NOT have cameras.
Averritt, Heartland , Swift(?)(!!!), Celadon, Schneider, Werner, PAM, Knight, Maverick...........In MY Opinion,....if there was a case to be made for any sort of "driver supervision",.....it would be with THOSE companies,....the ones with 95% turnover rate in a year's time,......and the industrie's leading accident rates.......
Instead,.....companies with long-term Union, and non-Union LTL employees,....and other career established trucking jobs, with..."older" drivers.......are the ones with cameras installed.
Prima Facie evidence,....in My Opinion,......that the real reason for cameras is,....Discipline,(..based on arbitrary company rules..)..and Liability Limiting of company exposure.....
.....(...and the gradual elimination of older drivers who get....disgusted...when their 30+ years, and millions of miles.....gets critiqued by some desk-bound, pointy-headed bean-counter,......who drives maybe 16,000 miles a year in his BMW,...and couldn't tell you a glad hand from a gearshift two tries out of three.......)......
The only thing holding companies up,........is the legality.....of the cameras,...and the collection of personal images.
And,.....apparently the Canadian Courts have decided for Canadian drivers. The ruling in Canada was announced August 21, 2017, by the Quebec Superior Court.
I hope this information,.....and the obligatory heavy dose of Opinion,.....helps you in asking the ABF company officials why they seem to need personal surveillance of....."The best drivers in the world".....(companies' words...)